Logical Fallacy of the Barnum Effect / P. T. Barnum Effect / The Fallacy of Personal Validation / The Forer Effect 

The P. T. Barnum effect is one of the many smokescreens that are used to cover the fact that the reasoning is based on one of the three fallacies of Agrippa's trilemma. Whenever a logical fallacy is committed, the fallacy has its roots in Agrippa's trilemma. All human thought (without Divine revelation) is based on one of three unhappy possibilities. These three possibilities are infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This problem is known as Agrippa's trilemma. Some have claimed that only logic and math can be known without Divine revelation; however, that is not true. There is no reason to trust either logic or math without Divine revelation. Science is also limited to the pragmatic because of the weakness on human reasoning, which is known as Agrippa's trilemma.

The Logical Fallacy of the Barnum Effect / P. T. Barnum Effect / The Fallacy of Personal Validation / The Forer Effect occurs when vague descriptions are regarded as accurate (sometimes thought to be detailed) even though they are vague and can be interpreted in different ways.

Examples of the Logical Fallacy of the Barnum Effect / P. T. Barnum Effect / The Fallacy of Personal Validation / The Forer Effect

Horoscopes, fortune-telling often work this way. This is not to say that there are not mediums who do indeed contact spirits and find out information that they would not have access to by other means. When scientific studies are done, those studies don't attempt to discredit every psychic. They do show that the human mind is easily fooled by the Barnum Effect.

rationalwiki: "Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms. Scientists speculate that life may have arisen as a result of random chemical processes happening to produce self-replicating molecules. One of the popular current hypotheses involves chemical reactivity around hydrothermal vents. This hypothesis has yet to be empirically proven although the current evidence is generally supportive of it. Give those crazy scientists a half billion or so years to play, though, and they might do just as well as nature once did!"

This all sounds like it links to something in the real world. It does not.

livescience: "Natural selection can change a species in small ways, causing a population to change color or size over the course of several generations. This is called 'microevolution.' But natural selection is also capable of much more. Given enough time and enough accumulated changes, natural selection can create entirely new species. It can turn dinosaurs into birds, apes into humans and amphibious mammals into whales. The physical and behavioral changes that make natural selection possible happen at the level of DNA and genes. Such changes are called 'mutations.'"

This vague description sounds like it gives quite a bit of information as to the "how" of the Big-Bang-Billions-of-Years-No-Flood-Molecules-to-Man story. It doesn't really say anything. There is no real evidence that any of this is true. Of course, there could not be. It is a story about history that doesn't rest on the writings of the times. It rests on the interpretations of observations. Those interpretations are based on one of three fallacies:  infinite regress, circular reasoning, or axiomatic thinking. This is because of Agrippa's Trilemma.